Introduction: “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny
“Iconicity in Literature” by Max Nänny first appeared in 1986 in Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry, offering a foundational exploration of how language visually and structurally mirrors meaning in literary texts. Drawing from C. S. Peirce’s semiotic distinction between ‘image’ and ‘diagram’ iconicity, Nänny argues that literature, particularly poetry, employs linguistic structures that reflect the relationships between concepts, mirroring the reality they describe. The study builds on the insights of Roman Jakobson and Geoffrey Leech, emphasizing how poetic forms exploit these iconic resources to enrich their aesthetic and interpretative dimensions. Through examples such as the spatial structure of Ezra Pound’s In a Station of the Metro and the chiastic symmetry in Charles Dickens’ Great Expectations, Nänny illustrates how literature actively challenges the arbitrary nature of linguistic signs. The significance of this article in literary theory lies in its interdisciplinary approach, merging linguistic, semiotic, and literary analysis to provide a nuanced understanding of textual construction. As Nänny asserts, “it is in literary texts that we find an exceptional development of the iconic imitative resources of language,” reinforcing the idea that form and meaning are inseparably intertwined in the act of literary creation.
Summary of “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny
- Iconicity in Language vs. Literature
- Traditional linguistic theory emphasizes the arbitrary nature of language (Saussure’s semiotics). However, iconicity—where linguistic form mirrors meaning—plays a significant role, particularly in literature (Nänny, 1986, p. 199).
- Roman Jakobson and C. S. Peirce’s distinction between image iconicity (e.g., onomatopoeia) and diagrammatic iconicity (e.g., syntactic structures mirroring conceptual relationships) is crucial in understanding iconicity in literary texts (p. 200).
- Poetic and literary language maximizes these iconic potentials to enhance aesthetic and expressive power.
- Two Types of Iconicity in Literature
- Image Iconicity: Found in words that resemble their referents, such as onomatopoeia (e.g., miaow for a cat’s sound) (p. 199).
- Diagrammatic Iconicity: More complex, involving the structure of phrases, sentences, and literary forms to mirror meaning (p. 201).
- Example: Caesar’s phrase veni, vidi, vici mirrors the sequence of actions in its syntax (p. 200).
- Linguistic Structure and Iconicity
- Geoffrey Leech and Michael Short argue that iconicity extends beyond onomatopoeia, affecting syntax, phonetics, and even text layout (p. 202).
- The sequence of events in literature often follows an iconic order to reflect real-world relations, supporting the idea that language is not entirely arbitrary.
- Literary Techniques of Iconicity
- Literature uses structural elements to enhance iconicity:
- Lineation: Varying line lengths to create visual effects. Example: George Herbert’s The Altar (p. 203).
- Stanza Breaks: Suggesting pauses or divisions in meaning. Example: Emily Dickinson’s use of stanza breaks to represent gaps or distances in space (p. 204).
- Word Order & Positioning: Example: Wordsworth’s Prelude places “first” at the beginning, “midst” in the middle, and “end” at the end of a line (p. 205).
- Iteration (Repetition): Used to reinforce meaning. Example: Ted Hughes’ The Thought-Fox repeats “now” to mimic the movement of a fox (p. 206).
- Chiasmus: A mirrored structure (ABBA pattern) that emphasizes reversal or symmetry. Example: William Blake’s A Divine Image (p. 207).
- Literature uses structural elements to enhance iconicity:
- Examples of Global Iconicity in Literature
- Ezra Pound’s In a Station of the Metro: The brevity of the poem mirrors the fleeting nature of the experience described (p. 208).
- Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick: The bulk of the novel mirrors the vastness of the whale itself (p. 208).
- James Joyce’s Ulysses and T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land: Structural complexity reflects the chaotic experience of modern urban life (p. 209).
- Conclusion: The Reader’s Role in Iconicity
- Iconicity in literature is often subliminal; it depends on the reader’s ability to perceive relationships between form and meaning (p. 210).
- While some forms of iconicity (like onomatopoeia) are immediately recognizable, more complex forms (like syntactic and structural iconicity) require deeper engagement with the text.
Significance in Literary Theory
- Challenges Saussure’s idea that language is entirely arbitrary, showing how linguistic structures can reflect meaning (p. 211).
- Establishes a framework for understanding the interplay between form and content in literary works.
- Provides tools for literary analysis by demonstrating how textual structures contribute to interpretation beyond mere semantics.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny
| Term/Concept | Definition | Reference in Article |
| Iconicity | The property of a linguistic or literary sign where its form mirrors its meaning, rather than being arbitrarily assigned. | p. 199 |
| Image Iconicity | A direct resemblance between a sign and its referent, such as onomatopoeia (miaow for a cat’s sound). | p. 200 |
| Diagrammatic Iconicity | A structured relationship between signs that mirrors relationships between concepts, e.g., syntactic arrangements reflecting event sequences. | p. 200 |
| Arbitrariness of the Sign | A linguistic principle (Saussurean) suggesting that there is no natural connection between words and their meanings. Nänny challenges this in literature. | p. 199 |
| Cratylism | The belief that language has an inherent mimetic or imitative quality, opposing Saussure’s arbitrariness principle. | p. 202 |
| Peirce’s Semiotics | Charles S. Peirce’s classification of signs into iconic, indexical, and symbolic. Nänny focuses on iconicity. | p. 200 |
| Syntactic Iconicity | The idea that sentence structure can mirror real-world processes, e.g., word order reflecting action order. | p. 202 |
| Phonetic Iconicity | The use of sound patterns (alliteration, assonance) to evoke meaning, beyond basic onomatopoeia. | p. 203 |
| Lineation | The manipulation of line breaks and lengths in poetry to create visual or rhythmic effects that reinforce meaning. | p. 203-204 |
| Stanza Breaks | The use of spaces between stanzas to create meaning, often mirroring pauses, separations, or divisions in content. | p. 204 |
| Iterative Iconicity | Repetition of words or structures to mimic continuity, movement, or patterns. Example: “Generations have trod, have trod, have trod” (Hopkins). | p. 206 |
| Chiasmus (Chiastic Structure) | A mirrored (ABBA) structural pattern that emphasizes reversal, balance, or contrast. Example: “Pip” in Great Expectations as a palindrome. | p. 207 |
| Structural Iconicity | The overall organization of a text mirroring its subject matter (e.g., the voluminous Moby-Dick symbolizing the vastness of a whale). | p. 208 |
| Metonymic Structuring | The idea that literature can create meaning through associative structures, mimicking reality (e.g., Dickens’ “big, baggy monsters” as urban complexity). | p. 209 |
| Temporal Iconicity | When textual order reflects temporal processes (e.g., sequence of actions in veni, vidi, vici). | p. 205 |
| Spatial Iconicity | The use of text arrangement to mirror spatial relationships (e.g., stanza breaks reflecting gaps or separations). | p. 204 |
| Typography as Iconicity | The way text formatting (such as staggered lines) visually mimics meaning. Example: Pound’s “Dogana’s steps” using staggered lines to resemble stairs. | p. 203 |
| Performative Textuality | The notion that texts do not just describe meaning but enact it through their structure. Example: Eliot’s diminishing line lengths in The Waste Land mirroring cultural decline. | p. 206 |
| Foregrounding | The use of unexpected structural or linguistic elements to draw attention to meaning (e.g., word placement reinforcing interpretation). | p. 207 |
| Palindromic Iconicity | The mirroring of words or structures to emphasize thematic reversals, as in Dickens’ Great Expectations (Pip’s name). | p. 207 |
Contribution of “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Contribution to Semiotic Theory (Peircean Semiotics)
- Nänny expands on C. S. Peirce’s semiotic framework, which classifies signs into icons, indexes, and symbols. He focuses on iconicity, demonstrating its widespread presence in literary texts beyond mere onomatopoeia (p. 200).
- Distinguishes between image iconicity (direct resemblance, e.g., onomatopoeia) and diagrammatic iconicity (structural relationships between words mirroring conceptual relationships) (p. 200).
- Challenges Saussure’s principle of the arbitrariness of the sign, arguing that literary language frequently exhibits non-arbitrary, iconic relationships between signifier and signified (p. 199).
2. Contribution to Structuralism and Formalism
- Supports the structuralist view that the arrangement of linguistic elements influences meaning, using Roman Jakobson’s idea that syntax itself can be iconic (p. 202).
- Proposes syntactic iconicity, where the order of words and phrases mirrors the sequence of real-world actions (e.g., veni, vidi, vici) (p. 202).
- Examines structural iconicity in texts, showing how an entire novel’s form can reflect its content (e.g., Moby-Dick’s length mirroring the vastness of the whale) (p. 208).
- Engages with metonymic structuring as seen in realism (e.g., Dickens’ “big, baggy monsters” as reflections of urban chaos) (p. 209).
3. Contribution to Poetics and Literary Stylistics
- Advances the theory of poetic function, arguing that poetry exploits iconicity more intensely than prose (p. 202).
- Aligns with Cratylism (the idea that language inherently imitates nature), citing its importance in the Mallarmé-Valéry tradition (p. 202).
- Shows how lineation, stanza breaks, and typography function as graphological icons, affecting interpretation (e.g., Ezra Pound’s staggered lines as stair-like structures) (p. 203).
- Identifies iteration (repetition) as an iconic device reinforcing themes of continuity, rhythm, and movement (e.g., Hopkins’ “trod, have trod, have trod”) (p. 206).
4. Contribution to Narratology and Textual Analysis
- Develops iconicity in narrative structure, showing how novels and poems embody their themes through form (e.g., the palindromic name “Pip” in Great Expectations reflecting inversion) (p. 207).
- Explores chiastic structures (ABBA patterns) as icons of symmetry, reversal, or mirroring (p. 207).
- Introduces temporal and spatial iconicity, where word placement reflects the progression of time or spatial relationships (e.g., stanza breaks representing separation in Dickinson’s poetry) (p. 204).
5. Contribution to Cognitive Poetics and Reader-Response Theory
- Argues that iconicity is perceptual—it is only realized when the reader recognizes the structural mimicry within a text (p. 202).
- Engages with Givón’s pragmatics, asserting that similarity in iconicity is not objective but dependent on the cognizing mind (p. 202).
- Supports reader-response criticism, noting that iconic effects depend on reader awareness and interpretation (p. 202).
6. Expanding Theories of Literary Representation and Mimesis
- Challenges the traditional mimetic theory (which sees literature as imitating reality purely through content), arguing that form itself is mimetic in iconicity (p. 202).
- Shows that literary works can be self-referential icons of their themes (e.g., The Waste Land’s fragmented structure mirroring cultural disintegration) (p. 206).
Examples of Critiques Through “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny
| Literary Work | Key Iconic Elements | Critique Through Nänny’s “Iconicity in Literature” |
|---|---|---|
| “In a Station of the Metro” – Ezra Pound | Poem’s brevity mirrors fleeting modernist experience. | Nänny’s concept of global iconicity is evident as the structure visually mimics an ephemeral vision. The stark juxtaposition of images reflects diagrammatic iconicity, showing how form enhances meaning. |
| Great Expectations – Charles Dickens | Pip’s name as a palindrome; chiastic structures. | Pip’s name symbolizes reversal and transformation, aligning with Nänny’s discussion of chiastic iconicity. The novel’s structure mirrors its themes of growth, social mobility, and cyclical fate. |
| The Waste Land – T.S. Eliot | Fragmented structure reflects modernist disillusionment. | Structural iconicity in Eliot’s work exemplifies form mirroring cultural decay. Nänny’s theory supports how poetic fragmentation enacts meaning, reinforcing the loss of cohesion in post-war society. |
| The Altar – George Herbert | Poem’s shape resembles an altar, reinforcing religious devotion. | Exemplifies graphological iconicity, as discussed by Nänny. The structure is not arbitrary but imitates its subject, making meaning visually and textually cohesive. |
Criticism Against “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny
1. Overemphasis on Iconicity in Language
- Critics argue that Nänny overstates the role of iconicity in linguistic and literary structures, downplaying the arbitrariness of language as argued by Saussurean linguistics.
- While Peircean semiotics recognizes iconicity, modern linguistic theories (such as generative grammar) emphasize abstract, symbolic structures over direct form-meaning relations.
2. Lack of Empirical Validation
- Nänny’s arguments rely heavily on textual analysis and interpretive methods, lacking empirical linguistic data to support claims about the universality of diagrammatic iconicity in grammar and syntax.
- Cognitive linguistics (e.g., Lakoff and Johnson) suggests that conceptual metaphors play a more dominant role in meaning formation than iconicity.
3. Overgeneralization of Literary Devices
- Some scholars argue that Nänny retroactively imposes iconic readings onto texts, treating elements like lineation, stanza breaks, and syntax as inherently iconic without considering alternative explanations such as tradition, stylistic choices, or pragmatic constraints.
- The assumption that all literary texts exhibit iconicity risks overgeneralization and reductionism, ignoring other interpretive frameworks like historical context or authorial intent.
4. Limited Scope Beyond Poetics
- The study privileges poetry and experimental literature, while prose and non-literary texts receive less attention.
- In prose fiction, thematic coherence, character development, and narrativity often override formal iconicity, which Nänny does not adequately address.
5. Neglect of Reader Variability
- Reader-response critics argue that iconicity is subjective and may not be universally perceived. Different readers may or may not recognize the iconic structures that Nänny identifies.
- The perception of iconicity is culturally and cognitively influenced, meaning that not all linguistic patterns carry inherent iconic value.
6. Insufficient Engagement with Alternative Theories
- While referencing Jakobson, Peirce, and structuralist linguistics, Nänny does not engage deeply with post-structuralist critiques of meaning-making, such as those from Derrida’s deconstruction, which argues that meaning is always deferred and unstable.
- The study does not sufficiently address how historical and sociocultural factors influence the formation of iconicity in literature.
7. Potential for Confirmation Bias
- Some critics suggest that Nänny selectively chooses examples that confirm his thesis, rather than systematically testing whether iconicity applies to a wider range of texts.
- The analysis could benefit from comparative studies of non-iconic texts to strengthen the claim that iconicity is a defining feature of literary structure.
Representative Quotations from “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “Iconic functions of textual elements, however, are no more than latent possibilities. They will only appear if the meaning of the textual passage is compatible with them.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 199) | Nänny emphasizes that iconicity in literature is not automatic but depends on the context of the text. Iconicity emerges only when there is a meaningful correlation between form and content. |
| “The phonetic shape of words is in fact one of the less promising areas in which to explore the phenomenon of language imitating nature.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 199) | While onomatopoeia is an example of iconicity, Nänny suggests that syntax and structure provide deeper, more complex forms of iconic representation in literature. |
| “In Peirce’s taxonomy of signs, an iconic image is a single sign which resembles its referent with respect to some (not necessarily visual) characteristic, such as a photograph or an onomatopoetic word.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 199) | This introduces Charles Peirce’s distinction between iconic images and diagrams, with the former directly resembling what they signify, while the latter is based on relational structure rather than direct resemblance. |
| “It is in the nature of literature to exploit all linguistic and, hence, also all iconic possibilities for aesthetic purposes.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 200) | Literature makes intentional use of iconicity, turning language into a medium that visually, structurally, or phonetically mirrors its content for artistic impact. |
| “Texts have a range of potential iconicity, but this is merely latent. In consequence, iconicity exists only as it is perceived.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 199) | Iconicity in literature is subjective and reader-dependent. A reader must actively recognize the form-meaning relationship for it to be effective. |
| “A literary text as a whole may be an icon of what it is about.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 200) | Nänny suggests that beyond words and syntax, an entire literary work can embody its subject through structure, such as the length of Moby Dick reflecting the vastness of the whale. |
| “Sequential icons of a comprehensive kind are found in literary works organized by means of the spatial order of a journey or the temporal principle of a chronology.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 201) | Stories structured around journeys or chronological progression mirror the passage of time or space, creating an iconic representation of movement. |
| “One of the chief devices for miming meaning in poetry is lineation, the handling of different lengths of line, staggering, and line-breaks.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 202) | The way lines are structured on the page can visually represent concepts such as descent, interruption, or spatial relationships, enhancing a poem’s meaning. |
| “The possibilities of form enacting meaning are ‘virtually unlimited’.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 200) | Nänny argues that iconicity in literature is an expansive field with endless creative applications, as writers can use syntax, structure, and form to reflect meaning. |
| “The perception of iconic features depends on the reader’s awareness and readiness to recognize, so to speak, the analogical structure behind the digital surface form.” (Nänny, 1986, p. 199) | Understanding literary iconicity requires readers to look beyond literal words and recognize deeper structural or phonetic patterns that reflect meaning. |
Suggested Readings: “Iconicity In Literature” by Max Nänny
- Fischer, Olga. “ICONICITY IN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE: Language Innovation and Language Change.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, vol. 98, no. 1, 1997, pp. 63–87. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43346409. Accessed 31 Jan. 2025.
- James A. W. Heffernan. “Ekphrasis and Representation.” New Literary History, vol. 22, no. 2, 1991, pp. 297–316. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469040. Accessed 31 Jan. 2025.
- BEALE, WALTER H. “Six Claims of Symmetry.” Learning from Language, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2009, pp. 37–66. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc0w.6. Accessed 31 Jan. 2025.